The High Court Report

Oral Argument: Karcho Polselli v. IRS | Case No. 21-1599 | Date Argued: 3/29/2023 | Date Decided: 5/18/2023

Oral Argument: Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products | Case No. 22-148 | Date Argued: 3/22/2023 | Date Decided: 6/8/2023

Oral Argument: Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc. | Case No. 21-1043 | Date Argued: 3/21/2023 | Date Decided: 6/29/2023

Oral Argument: Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski | Case No. 22-105 | Date Argued: 3/21/2023 | Date Decided: 6/23/2023

Oral Argument: Arizona v. Navajo Nation | Case No. 21-1484 | Date Argued: 3/20/2023 | Date Decided: 6/22/2023

Oral Argument: New York v. New Jersey Oral Argument | Case No. 156-Orig | Date Argued: 3/1/2023 | Date Decided: 4/18/2023

Oral Argument: Deptartment of Education v. Brown | Case No. 22-535 | Date Argued: 2/28/2023 | Date Decided: 6/30/2023

Oral Argument: Biden v. Nebraska | Case No. 22-506 | Date Argued: 2/28/2023 | Date Decided: 6/30/2023

Oral Argument: Dubin v. United States | Case No. 22-10 | Date Argued: 2/27/2023 | Date Decided: 6/8/2023

Oral Argument: Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh | Case No. 21-1496 | Date Argued: 2/22/2023 | Date Decided: 5/18/2023

Oral Argument: Gonzalez v. Google LLC | Case No. 21-1333 | Date Argued: 2/21/2023 | Date Decided: 5/18/2023

Oral Argument: Gonzalez v. Google LLC | Case No. 21-1333 | Date Argued: 2/21/2023 | Date Decided: 5/18/2023

Oral Argument: Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools | Case No. 21-887 | Date Argued: 1/18/2023 | Date Decided: 3/21/2023

Oral Argument: Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States | Case No. 21-1450 | Date Argued: 1/17/2023 | Date Decided: 4/19/2023

Oral Argument: Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, Att'y Gen. | Case No. 21-1436 | Date Argued: 1/17/2023 | Date Decided: 5/11/2023

Oral Argument: Financial Oversight Board v. CPI | Case No. 22-96 | Date Argued: 1/11/2023 | Date Decided: 5/11/2023

Oral Argument: Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters | Case No. 21-1449 | Date Argued: 1/10/2023 | Date Decided: 6/1/2023

Oral Argument: OH Adjutant Gen.'s Dept. v. FLRA | Case No. 21-1454 | Date Argued: 1/9/2023 | Date Decided: 5/18/2023

Oral Argument: In Re Grand Jury | Case No. 21-1397 | Date Argued: 1/9/2023 | Date Decided: 1/23/2023

Oral Argument: Moore v. Harper | Case No. 21-1271 | Date Argued: 12/7/2022 | Date Decided: 6/27/2023

Oral Argument: Bartenwerfer v. Buckley | Case No. 21-908 | Date Argued: 12/6/2022 | Date Decided: 2/22/2023

Oral Argument: U.S., ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health | Case No. 21-1052 | Date Argued: 12/6/2022 | Date Decided: 6/16/2023

Oral Argument: MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC | Case No. 21-1270 | Date Argued: 12/5/2022 | Date Decided: 4/19/2023

Oral Argument: 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis | Case No. 21-476 | Date Argued: 12/5/2022 | Date Decided: 6/30/2023

Oral Argument: Wilkins v. United States | Case No. 21-1164 | Date Argued: 11/30/2022 | Date Decided: 3/28/2023

Oral Argument: United States v. Texas | Case No. 22-58 | Date Argued: 11/29/2022 | Date Decided: 6/23/2023

Oral Argument: Ciminelli v. United States | Case No. 21-1170 | Date Argued: 11/28/2022 | Date Decided: 5/11/2023

Oral Argument: Percoco v. United States | Case No. 21-1158 | Date Argued: 11/28/2022 | Date Decided: 5/11/2023

Oral Argument: Haaland v. Brackeen | Case No. 21-376 | Date Argued: 11/9/2022 | Date Decided: 6/15/2023

Oral Argument: Health and Hospital Corp. v. Talevski | Case No. 21-806 | Date Argued: 11/8/2022 | Date Decided: 6/8/2023

Oral Argument: Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. | Case No. 21-1168 | Date Argued: 11/8/2022 | Date Decided: 6/27/2023

Oral Argument: Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC | Case No. 21-86 | Date Argued: 11/7/2022 | Date Decided: 4/14/2023

Oral Argument: SEC v. Cochran | Case No. 21-1239 | Date Argued: 11/7/2022 | Date Decided: 4/13/2023

Oral Argument: Bittner v. United States | Case No. 21-1195 | Date Argued: 11/2/2022 | Date Decided: 2/28/2023

Oral Argument: Jones v. Hendrix | Case No. 21-857 | Date Argued: 11/1/2022 | Date Decided: 6/22/2023

Oral Argument: Cruz v. Arizona | Case No. 21-846 | Date Argued: 11/1/2022 | Date Decided: 2/22/2023

Oral Argument: Students for Fair Admissions v. UNC | Case No. 21-707 | Date Argued: 10/31/2022 | Date Decided: 6/29/2023

Oral Argument: Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard | Case No. 20-1199 | Date Argued: 10/31/2022 | Date Decided: 6/29/2023

Oral Argument: Helix Energy Solutions v. Hewitt | Case No. 21-984 | Date Argued: 10/12/2022 | Date Decided: 2/22/2023

Oral Argument: Andy Warhol Found., Inc. v. Goldsmith | Case No. 21-869 | Date Argued: 10/12/2022 | Date Decided: 5/18/2023

Oral Argument: Reed v. Goertz | Case No. 21-442 | Date Argued: 10/11/2022 | Date Decided: 4/19/2023

Oral Argument: National Pork Producers v. Ross | Case No. 21-468 | Date Argued: 10/11/2022 | Date Decided: 5/11/2023

Oral Argument: Arellano v. McDonough | Case No. 21-432 | Date Argued: 10/4/2022 | Date Decided: 1/23/2023

Oral Argument: Merrill v. Milligan | Case No. 21-1086 | Date Argued: 10/4/2022 | Date Decided: 6/8/2023

Oral Argument: Sackett v. EPA | Case No. 21-454 | Date Argued: 10/3/2022 | Date Decided: 5/25/2023

Oral Argument: Delaware v. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin | Case No. 145-Orig | Date Argued: 10/3/2022 | Date Decided: 2/28/2023

Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta | Case No. 21-429 | Date Argued: 4/27/2022 | Date Decided: 6/29/2022Question Presented: 1. Whether a State has authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country. 2. Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.Holding: The Federal Government and the State have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country.Result: Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED.Voting Breakdown: 5-4. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito and Barrett joined. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan joined.Link to Opinion: Here.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner: Kannon K. Shanmugam, Washington, D.C. For Respondent: Zachary C. Schauf, Washington, D.C.; and Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)

Biden v. Texas | Case No. 21-954 | Date Argued: 4/26/2022 | Date Decided: 6/30/2022Background: This case concerns the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), a former policy of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under which certain noncitizens arriving at the southwest border were returned to Mexico during their immigration proceedings. On June 1, 2021, the Secretary of Homeland Security issued a memorandum terminating MPP. The district court vacated the Secretary's termination decision and remanded the matter to the agency on two grounds: (1) that terminating MPP violates 8 U.S.C. 1225 because DHS lacks capacity to detain all the inadmissible noncitizens it encounters who purportedly must be detained under that provision, and (2) that the Secretary had not adequately explained his decision. The court entered a permanent injunction requiring DHS to reinstate and maintain MPP unless Congress funds sufficient detention capacity for DHS to detain all noncitizens subject to mandatory detention under Section 1225 and until the agency adequately explained a future termination. On October 29, 2021, after thoroughly reconsidering the matter on remand, the Secretary issued a new decision terminating MPP and providing a comprehensive explanation for the decision. The court of appeals nevertheless affirmed the injunction, endorsing the district court's reading of Section 1225 and holding that the Secretary's new decision could not be considered because it had no legal effect.Question Presented: Whether 8 U.S.C. 1225 requires DHS to continue implementing MPP. Whether the court of appeals erred by concluding that the Secretary's new decision terminating MPP had no legal effect.Holding: The Government’s rescission of MPP did not violate section 1225 of the INA, and the October 29 Memoranda constituted final agency action.Result: Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED.Voting Breakdown: 5-4. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan and Kavanaugh joined. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined. Justice Barrett filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch joined as to all but theLink to Opinion: Here.Oral Advocates:For Petitioners: Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For Respondents: Judd E. Stone, II, Solicitor General, Austin, Tex.

Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist. | Case No. 21-418 | Date Argued: 4/25/2022 | Date Decided: 6/27/2022Background: Petitioner Joseph Kennedy lost his job as a football coach at a public high school because he knelt and said a quiet prayer by himself at midfield after the game ended. After considering an interlocutory petition in which Kennedy sought review of the lower courts' refusal to grant him a preliminary injunction, four members of this Court observed that "the Ninth Circuit's understanding of the free speech rights of public school teachers is troubling and may justify review in the future," but concluded that this Court should stay its hand until the lower courts definitively determined the reason for Kennedy's termination. The statement also noted that Kennedy had a then unaddressed claim under the Free Exercise Clause. On remand, the lower courts found-and the school district ultimately agreed-that Kennedy lost his job solely because of his religious expression. Yet the Ninth Circuit nevertheless ruled against him again. The court not only doubled down on its "troubling" free-speech reasoning, which transforms virtually all speech by public-school employees into government speech lacking any First Amendment protection, but reached the remarkable conclusion that, even if Kennedy's prayer was private expression protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses (which it undoubtedly was), the Establishment Clause nevertheless required its suppression. The court denied en banc review over the objection of 11 judges.Question Presented: 1. Whether a public-school employee who says a brief, quiet prayer by himself while at school and visible to students is engaged in government speech that lacks any First Amendment protection. 2. Whether, assuming that such religious expression is private and protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, the Establishment Clause nevertheless compels public schools to prohibit it.Holding: The Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect an individual engaging in a personal religious observance from government reprisal; the Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression.Result: Judgment REVERSED.Voting Breakdown: 5-3. Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito and Barrett joined and in which Justice Kavanaugh joined except as to Part IIIâB. Justice Thomas and Justice Alito filed concurring opinions. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer and Kagan joined.Link to Opinion: Here.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner: Paul D. Clement, Washington, D.C. For Respondent: Richard B. Katskee, Washington, D.C.